Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 208 of 253 (119472)
06-28-2004 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Hangdawg13
06-27-2004 12:26 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
I just realized that you ignored this simple question in your reply:
In short, I know what I know from the Bible.
quote:
You know that the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 12:26 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 1:56 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 225 of 253 (119964)
06-29-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Hangdawg13
06-28-2004 1:56 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
You know that the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true?
quote:
Yes.
That is circular reasoning.
Just because you believe something is true, and just because you "feel" something is true, doesn't allow you to know it is true.
A disinterested observer cannot use your faith as evidence to determine if the bible is true or not. He or she must have confiming evidence out side of the Bible itself that anyone can view and examine.
quote:
My conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit.
That's a nice personal faith, but faith is not the same as knowledge.
quote:
Faith is the substance of things confidently hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.
Right, that's why you cannot know the Bible is true, you can only have faith that it is.
quote:
And besides that I have studied a little bit of prophecy and some hidden messages in the Bible and some other numerical anomalies that God has put in there as sort of a security measure.
Like what?
Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 1:56 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:25 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 226 of 253 (119966)
06-29-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hangdawg13
06-28-2004 12:55 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
You have never accepted anything on faith? When you go to the mechanic to have your car fixed and he says you need a new transmission, do you say, I don't believe you unless you take it out and show me how it works and what's wrong with it.
Interestingly, in this state the car owner has the legal right to examine and take home any part that the mechanic says needs replacing, so the car owner doesn't have to take the mechanic's word for it, this discouraging the mechanic from replacing or "fixing" things that dodn't need to be.
Anyway, what you are talking about is trust, not faith. I have a great deal of information at my disposal before I decide to trust that this mechanic knows what he or she is doing and is treating me correctly.
Any disinterested observer can also observe the mechanic, the car, etc., and determine a great deal about the situation.
You, however, are the only one who can say what God says to you and does for you. There can be no disintersted observer in your faith situation.
However, a disinterested observer does need these things to determine reality.
quote:
Then why do so many people when presented with the gospel for the first time immediately believe?
Are you sure this really happens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:55 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:12 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 229 of 253 (120737)
07-01-2004 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Hangdawg13
06-30-2004 1:12 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
Ever talk to a missionary?
Why should I trust what a missionary thinks is happening?
Don't you think that they might just believe what they want to believe about the people they are trying to convert?
Oh, and yes, I have spoken to several missionaries and they always get tired of me before I get tired of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:12 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 253 (120753)
07-01-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Hangdawg13
06-30-2004 1:25 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
There are over 300 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus alone. Come on, do your homework.
LOL!
I know the bible says Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but I am talking about clear, unambiguous fulfilled prophecy with evidence from multiple sources to confim it.
You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.
That's circular reasoning.
quote:
What are the odds that the very first geneology recorded in the Bible by Moses would contain the names whose meanings form one sentence containing the gospel of Christ?
Oh, come on, you haven't fallen for those Junior High spooky-spooky "what are the odds?!" fallacies, have you?
First of all, those translations don't form a sentence.
You had to insert words to make it a sentence.
Second, are all of these translations of names agreed upon as most accurate, or have they been selected to make more sense in a sentence?
Third, since we have no evidence at all that any of these people existed, the "hidden" message could have been a symbolic, literary device.
Fourth, why do you cut off the last verse of Gen 5, in which Noah's offspring Shem, Ham, and Japeth are listed? What do their names translate to mean, and do those translations fit into the "sentence"?
quote:
Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; [but] the blessed God shall come down teaching [that] His death shall bring [the] despairing rest.
Does this sentence also form a grammatical sentence in ancienct Hebrew?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-01-2004 09:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:25 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 233 of 253 (121152)
07-02-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hangdawg13
07-01-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
STILL no comment on my 3 very good arguments about God's character? Sigh... I guess you concede that I am right then... haha
I did respond in message #205 of this thread.
Your rebuttals were more apologetics and several "No, it isn't"-type comments.
quote:
The Hebrew is a very precise language.
LOL!
quote:
They say in 5 words what we say in 10 and have more meaning in it than we do.
No, they actually allow the reader to insert his or her own meaning into the sentence, because there are bits left out.
quote:
It still makes sense even without the added words although saying it in english without the added words is a bit awkward.
That is absolutely incorrect.
Let's look at the sentences with and without the added articles, shall we?
Your version:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
The non-embellished version:
Man appointed mortal sorrow; the Blessed God shall come down teaching His death shall bring despairing rest.
In the non-doctored version, it is man who "appointed mortal sorrow". By inserting "is", you change the meaning significantly.
Also, it looks like God is going to come down teaching about God's own death and that this will bring rest, but that this rest is characterized by the feeling of despair.
quote:
English translations are filled with added words to try to convey the full meaning of it in Hebrew.
I don't buy that, and I'll explain why in a moment.
Second, are all of these translations of names agreed upon as most accurate, or have they been selected to make more sense in a sentence?
quote:
Sure look up their roots and you will get the same thing. Several of the names are already explained in the context.
Here are their roots. Several of them don't make sense in the sentence you gave:
Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Adam = origin word:119 to be red, red 120 man, mankind
Seth = origin word: to put, set 7896
Enos = origin word: man, mortal man, person, mankind 582
Kenan = origin word: nest 7064
Mahalaleel = origin word: praise, boast 4110 and 410 god, god-like one, mighty one
Jered or Jared = origin word: to go down, descend, decline, march down, sink down 3381
Enoch = origin word: to train, dedicate, inaugurate 2596
Methuselah = origin: male, man 4962 and weapon, missile, sprout missile, weapon a. sprout, shoot 7973
Lamech = unused root of uncertain meaning [however has no roots in common with the words used for lamentation or its roots]
Noah = origin word: resting place 5118
I actually did find a site which explained all of this, but I'll bet it's one you haven't ever tried to find, because it is a skeptical site.
The page cannot be found
Here are a few more definition lists from other sites:
1. Smith's Bible Dictionary Smiths Bible Dictionary Online
2. Easton's Bible Dictionary Eastons Bible Dictionary Online
3. Theological Word Book of the Old Testament Strong's #04968 - - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org
4. The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
1)Ad’am (red earth )
2) red, a Babylonian word, the generic name for man
3) "red"
4) "red"
1)Seth (compensation ),
2) appointed; a substitute
3) "compensation"
4) "compensation"
1)E’nos (mortal man ),
2) man the son of Seth
3) "man"
4) "man"
1)Ke’nan (possession )
2) Cainan possession; smith.
3) "possession"
4) "possession"
1)Mahal’ale-el (praise of God).
2) praise of God.
3) "praise of God"
4) "praise of God"
1)Ja’red (descent ),
2) descent.
3) "descent"
4) "descent"
1)E’noch (dedicated).
2) initiated.
3) "dedicated "
4) "dedicated"
1)Methu’selah (man of the dart )
2) man of the dart,
3) "man of the dart"
4) "man of the dart"
1)La’mech (powerful ),
2) the strikerdown; the wild man.
3) "powerful"
4) "powerful"
1)No’ah (rest ),
2) rest,
3) "motion"
4) "rest"
So, it seems some of the meanings of the words are not clear, and can mean different things. It is obvious that these meanings have been carefully chosen and sifted through to make a coherent sentence, but even then some English words had to be added to change the meaning to the desired one. In some cases, the meanings have been changed outright.
quote:
Eve gave birth to Seth saying: God has appointed me a son.
The most common translation for "Seth" is "compensation".
quote:
Some of the others are explained elsewhere like Methuselah: "His death shall bring" the flood.
The most common translation of "Methuselah" is "man of the dart".
As you can see, some serious liberties were taken to pick and choose and stretch and interpret the meanings of the words in your so-called amazing sentence.
Here's the sentence as you submitted it:
"Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest."
Now lets plug in the most common meanings (or just as common) for the names instead of the cherry picked ones:
"Red (is) compensation man posession; (but) praise of God descent dedicated (that) man of the dart (the) powerful rest."
Hmm, not really much like the first one, eh?
Now lets remove the added articles and punctuation:
"Red compensation man posession praise of God descent dedicated man of the dart powerful rest."
Even worse now, I'm afraid.
Does this sentence also form a grammatical sentence in ancienct Hebrew?
quote:
Yep.
Source and evidence, please.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-02-2004 09:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-02-2004 8:04 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 234 of 253 (121169)
07-02-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hangdawg13
07-01-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
Fourth, why do you cut off the last verse of Gen 5, in which Noah's offspring Shem, Ham, and Japeth are listed? What do their names translate to mean, and do those translations fit into the "sentence"?
quote:
Because the geneology is interrupted by the flood.
No, it isn't, either as it's written in Gen 5, nor chronologically.
Noah's three sons were born before the flood, and they are included in the geneology in Gen 5.
I will ask you again;
What are the definitions of their names and do they fit into the sentence?
Why were they left off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 247 of 253 (123318)
07-09-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by coffee_addict
07-09-2004 4:53 AM


ooooo, yeah, that was a really good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by coffee_addict, posted 07-09-2004 4:53 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024